Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00128)

Ann E. Bermingham writes:
>> From: John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org>
>
>> You say we should give you the summary and THEN direct you to the literary
>> works.  Why should we waste the time of giving you a summary that could be
>> misconstrued, when there is a high probability that the author of the
>> literature we direct you to will have been a smoker, or ate meat.  It's
>>much more intelligent, I think, to tell you what the book is and let you go
>from there.
>
>I fail to find the meaning behind the possibility that the author may
>have smoked Salems or ate bacon for breakfast.  Non-smokingism
>and vegetarianism are no longer a strict requirement in joining TS.
>If they were, I would have not joined.

I brought this up not because I find fault in those who smoke or eat meat, but
because it seems that Alan does.  In a rebuttal titled The 4 B's, Alan
stated that Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, and Burnier were "now untheosophical"
in their behavior and, therefore, were not genuine.  For Blavatsky, he wrote
the following:
  "Heav[y] smoker (now untheosophical) meat-eater (now untheosophical) user of
"colorful" language (extremely untheosophical)."
I think that meat eating and smoking has nothing to do with love, wisdom, and
knowledge.  But to Alan, it seems to.  So what I was trying to say (in a
somewhat sarcastic sort of way) was that I didn't feel that we should waste
our time giving a summary and THEN give him a reference book when he uses
reasons like that to invalidate authors.  I'm trying not to be rude and
"insulting" to him.  That is never my intention.  But ...this is the
impression he has given me on this issue.

>I have sometimes had the same problem that Alan has, in that I
>would like to hear posters explain things, if possible, in their own
>words.  If we, as Theosophists, can only quote someone else,
>what do we know on our own?  Or are we aping some higher
>authority figure and checking our brains at the door?

I understand.  I don't believe I have ever given someone on this list a book
to explain an issue.  However, if I ever came across an issue which is best
explained by a book, as in the Mahatma letter issue to which I believe this
was referring, the book I would mention.  And MKR did just that.

>For those referring to the Bailey books, I will be happy to
>type out passages if I am given the title and page numbers.
>I have collected many volumes and realize that many on
>the list do not own any.
>
>> And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in
>>which you have been guilty of the same.  However, I once again apologize
>>that you were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact.

>The only thing Alan is guilty of, IMHO, is being brutally honest.  Are you
>saving his posts for a cyberspace court trial?  Will that be before or
>after we try CWL for his misdeeds?  Or question HPB on the contents
>of her smoking mixture?
>
>-Ann E. Bermingham

*laugh* No, Ann, I'm not out to get Alan.  I've saved many posts that I found
interesting so that I can refer back to them later.  It just so happens that
on a few of these, he has been guilty of the same as I.  I feel that I was
being "brutally' honest in my post.  Instead, I was made out by him to be an
"unpleasant person".

---
The Triaist